Comments on: Witness immunity sought for gay service members

By: Harry_Hay

Harry_Hay — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 19:37:42 +0000

Now they do not want “don’t ask don’t tell” , they want “must ask must answer” or simply their MAMA.

So, if an officer asks a gay service man, if he is gay, the gay service must answer or suffer a court martial.

Sounds like J Edgar Hoover, asking hey Harry are you gay and a member of the Communist Party of America and Mattachine Society.

By: Jessi Hartman

Jessi Hartman — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 19:19:07 +0000

Getting it passed is one challenge, finding people with the balls to out themselves after you pass it, that’s an entirely different mountain to climb.

By: jessieka

jessieka — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 00:16:31 +0000

sorry meant gays serving

By: jessieka

jessieka — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 00:15:56 +0000

ok immunity is great the problem is they will be known & watched.Just like any whistle blowers they must be further protected by being able to give testamony behind closed doors to aviode problems with discharge or harrasment.
Anything beneath top secret protection is no protection.
I agea with steve but believe all are straight friends also needs to call in gay were in to illegal wars & the prez bro is getting us in even deeper. Let the majors chioce betreen furthering the hopeless war or there faith that no guys are serving……

By: SteveMD2

SteveMD2 — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 02:59:14 +0000

America needs a national coming out day for the Military. Where tens of thousands admit they are gay, and demand release under DADT.

And then the Govt will have to decide whether the nation is more important that the bigots.

And think of all the shit that the repub bigots, who always present themselves as patriots will get, when eg Afghanistan collapses because of them.

Hopefully the next thing that will happen is the Taliban pay a visit to the house of Hate Located in Rome, living in the dark ages

By: Facebook User

Facebook User — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 23:30:22 +0000

I think it would be much more far reaching and helpful for our CIC,who is sending Gay family members (many with children) off to die… leaving their closeted families nothing…
For him to just sign a STOP LOSS until the Congress gets their act together.

By: lancer808

lancer808 — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 06:35:36 +0000

Having to create an immunity program in order to gather valid testimony just shows how twisted the whole DADT policy is to begin with…

By: Michael Duffy

Michael Duffy — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 04:37:00 +0000

As a currently serving member of the armed forces I’d be glad to to contact a member of that congressional committee to speak. I don’t know the particulars of the bill but I am not afraid of being outed in my unit as most already know. If the bill protected me on some level it would be fine… it would also become more proof that a gay service member could function openly.

By: jessieka

jessieka — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 00:57:32 +0000

Ok with the order for 30 THOUSAND in an illeganamit war its time for EVERY service person gay straight exctra to CALL IN GAY!If they did withen 2 weeks dont ask dont tell will be ONLY a bad joke!

By: Sporty_g

Sporty_g — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 23:03:53 +0000

While I certainly welcome the idea of offering a “protective cover” to any current service person from prosecution under DADT, for being brave enough to testify…..From a pragmatic standpoint…it just doesn’t seem to work. Without seeing the language of the bill, how does the gay service person go about telling his superiors that they want to be considered for congressional testimony and claim protection under this bill/law? If the superiors deny the request by the “potential participant”, they have outed themself and can’t claim this protection. I would think that the pool of 13000 existing service members that have been dismissed under DADT would be sufficient to get a good picture of the damage DADT has cuased the US Military. There are certainly enough former service members that are willing to testify… two or three come to mind…Lt. Dan Choi, Sgt. Darren Manzella, Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach….good intentions of the bill are not going to beat the vindictiveness of those intent on enforcing DADT….